Patna High Court

Gyanchand Mandal @ Gyanchandra MandalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 1 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PARTHA SARTHY

Holding

The application for regular bail was rejected.

Summary

Gyanchand Mandal applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that he and three others assaulted the informant’s father, who later died. The prosecution, based on the FIR and a post‑mortem report, contended that the petitioner directly assaulted the victim with a lathi, causing fatal injuries. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated due to a prior dispute and that the informant was not an eye‑witness. The court examined the FIR allegations, the post‑mortem findings, and the seriousness of the charge. Concluding that the allegations were specific and serious, the court refused bail, permitting the petitioner to re‑apply only after one year in custody or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite allegations of assault leading to death under B.N.S. sections 103(1) and 3(5).
Whether the FIR and post‑mortem report constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication due to a past dispute is credible.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
assault
homicide
false implication
post‑mortem report
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
section 103
section 3(5)

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91704 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2025 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia
                 ======================================================
                 Gyanchand Mandal @ Gyanchandra Mandal, Son of Late Nasib Mandal,
                 Resident of Village- Khajuraho Kamat, Ward No.12, P.S.-Barhara @ Barhara
                 Kothi, District- Purnea.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :       Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Surya Kant Mishra, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Manish Kumar, APP
                 For the Informant       :       Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   01-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP

                   for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

                                2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Barhara Kothi P.S. Case

                   no.242 of 2025 registered under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that the four named accused persons including the petitioner

                   herein came variously armed and started abusing his father. His

                   father asked them not to abuse on which the petitioner is said to

                   have assaulted the father of the informant with a lathi. The other

                   accused persons are also said to have assaulted him. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91704 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
                                            2/3




          stated that soon thereafter, the father of the informant fell down

          and died.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of past

          dispute between the parties. From the contents of the F.I.R. itself

          it would transpire that the informant is not an eye witness to the

          occurrence and states that he reached there on hearing halla.

          The allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus in

          nature and he is in custody since 24.11.2025.

                       5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for

          the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel

          for the informant submits that there is direct allegation against

          the petitioner in the F.I.R. of having assaulted the father of the

          informant with a lathi leading to his death. Learned counsel

          submits that the corresponding injury has been found in the

          postmortem report.

                       6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

          taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. together

          with the contents of the postmortem report, the Court is not

          inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is

          rejected.

                       7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91704 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      prayer for bail after completing one year in custody and framing

                      of charge, whichever is later.


                                                              (Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…